Scanning: A Story of a Quest to Scan B&W Film with a Happy Ending!

[sanking]

OK, but there is the rub. What are your purposes?

The Epson E700 and M1 would not be good for most of my purposes either, but if my purpose happened to be scanning 4X5, 5X7 or 8X10 film with modest magnfication, say no more than 4X, they would be good enough.

For scanning 35mm or MF, both would give very poor results compared to dedicated film scanners, professional flatbeds and drum scanners.

It is really about intended application so we need to be specific about what our purpose may be.

Sandy

I've used the V700 and the M1 and I would not consider either as being good for my purposes. YMMV

 

[jd callow]

Exactly so, but my purposes go beyond how large to enlarge, although that is an issue. I have wants (good film holders, assurance of quality) and needs (the ability scan into the dmax and crisp scans with low noise) that neither scanner seems to be able to deliver. I was very close to buying the M1, but It would have have irritated and disappointed me.

For the M1 I'd like film holders that meet my film choices 6x6, 6x9, 4x5 and can hold the film flat. For the Epson I'd like to know the one I buy is as good as some and not as bad as others -- I have no experience with the V700 being hit or miss on quality but I have lots of first hand knowledge of sample to sample inconsistencies in their other scanners.

Lets assume that I can live scanning on glass not holders for M1 and that the epson is of good quality, neither does an adequate job with shadow area with slide film( or the denser areas of xprocessed films) and I don't trust the focus of the epson as the scans I did were softer than the M1's.

They work for others.

 

[pschwart]

Exactly so, but my purposes go beyond how large to enlarge, although that is an issue. I have wants (good film holders, assurance of quality) and needs (the ability scan into the dmax and crisp scans with low noise) that neither scanner seems to be able to deliver. I was very close to buying the M1, but It would have have irritated and disappointed me.

For the M1 I'd like film holders that meet my film choices 6x6, 6x9, 4x5 and can hold the film flat. For the Epson I'd like to know the one I buy is as good as some and not as bad as others -- I have no experience with the V700 being hit or miss on quality but I have lots of first hand knowledge of sample to sample inconsistencies in their other scanners.

Lets assume that I can live scanning on glass not holders for M1 and that the epson is of good quality, neither does an adequate job with shadow area with slide film( or the denser areas of xprocessed films) and I don't trust the focus of the epson as the scans I did were softer than the M1's.

They work for others.

The Epsons do have plenty of limitations -- they are really consumer-level products. I do actually own an Epson V700 -- got one refurbished. Scanners are too handy not to own one, and a bonus with the Epson is it's great for making enlarged proof sheets. The Epson film holders are junk and the scanner sadly lacks auto- or manual focus, but with 3rd-party film holders, medium format scans of b&w negatives enlarged 3X are surprisingly good. I don't actually recommend these, but for some limited uses they can provide good results.
Re sample inconsistency -- this is unfortunately true even with high-end optics like Canon L lenses. If I spend a lot, I test to make sure I am getting what I paid for. With cheaper hardware, I don't worry that there might be a better sample; I just check to make sure the one I have is good enough.

 

[sanking]

That is the bottom line. The Epson consumer level flatbeds are not professional quality equipment. They may fill the bill for some needs, but if you have professional requirements there is no reason to expect that an Epson or Microetek flatbed for $700 will fill that need.

Sandy

The Epsons do have plenty of limitations -- they are really consumer-lever products.

 

[pschwart]

That is the bottom line. The Epson consumer level flatbed are not professional quality equipment. They may fill the bill for some needs, but if you have professional requirements there is no reason to expect that an Epson or Microetek flatbed for $700 will fill that need.

Sandy

Yes, it's always about picking the right tool for the job. I wish there were more affordable choices for medium format scanning. I see a Nikon 9000 in my future ...

 

[monkeytumble]

It is interesting to see this discussion... I recently went through these discussions in the process of deciding to commit to the hybrid technological path I am now on. It ultimately came down to the following:

Defining end product requirements: PDFs for website distribution and prints up to 13x19 in size of sufficient quality to sell for modest prices.

Defining aesthetic requirements: the abstraction of B&W with luscious tone and texture and creative depth of field control.

Defining other constraints: a work flow conducive to performing work in photographic projects, fit within the time constrains of my life, and cost less than a modest automobile

Reverse engineering a solution:
1. The aesthetic consideration pushed me toward a large digital image sensor camera or medium and large format film camera.
2. While time constraints and project oriented work flow considerations pushed me toward a large digital image sensor camera, cost constrains pushed me away from a large digital image sensor camera, e.g., a digital Hasselblad, and toward medium and large format film camera capture.
3. Time constrains made optical enlarging and wet chemistry prints infeasible.
4. Photographic project work considerations pushed me toward developing my own B&W film, scanning myself, and performing my own inkjet printing.

I would like to find a way to scan 4x5 B&W negatives for prints up to 13x19 in size with the same quality I can achieve with the Nikon 9000 and medium format film... anyone have a silver bullet for that one?

 

[jd callow]

Well the thread is about the quest for scanning nirvana and the subsequent question was the cost of getting there. The epson or the M1 may be great bargains at 700 (I see them as flawed), but neither are going to get you to scanning happiness or are comparable to the 35mm and MF options. If you want to scan 4x5 at the level available from the Nikon film scanners in 35mm and MF those two flatbeds are not the answer

 

[Marco B]

The advantages of scanning, correcting the file in Photoshop and then printing digitally are very great as most everyone who has worked this way would agree. It is so obvious that "even a cave man would get it," to use a modified line from a Geico commercial. Sandy

Sandy, this is a bit presumptuous...

If the quest is not so much the best digital file from a negative / diapositive, but the best digital file from a film based image, the wet process can give stunning results as well, without the added need to do extensive post processing in PS.

I have made successful and high quality scans from analog A4 sized FB and RC prints, that reproduce beautifully when printed on digital papers. And the good thing is, it doesn't even require a high end film scanner... Any half decent flatbed can scan at 300-600ppi properly, and produce a beautiful 48 bit high resolution scans.

Below attached are two files, scanned from an about A4 FB analog print at 400 ppi. The detail is at 100% viewing. Film was TriX 400 in 35mm format.

Yes, you can see the grain clearly, especially in the background sky, but I love the nature of it! This digital file reproduces beautifully when printing it digitally at the same size as the original, including the grain. Removing the grain digitally is not always a good thing...

Marco

 

[pschwart]

Well the thread is about the quest for scanning nirvana and the subsequent question was the cost of getting there. The epson or the M1 may be great bargains at 700 (I see them as flawed), but neither are going to get you to scanning happiness or are comparable to the 35mm and MF options. If you want to scan 4x5 at the level available from the Nikon film scanners in 35mm and MF those two flatbeds are not the answer

My conclusion is that each practitioner needs to pick hardware and software
after carefully considering the intended use and desired results. Consumer-grade products may or may not suffice. This is true is the traditional wet darkroom, as well.

 

[sanking]

Marco,

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is based on personal experience. I have printed extensively with pure analog methods (did that for over 30 years) and for the past eight years or so with digital negatives produced from scans of film. The amount of control that is available with digital processing is far more extensive and easier to apply than with straight analog printing. That to me is such an obvious fact I don't believe that anyone with much experience with both methods would even question it.

The ability to correct the file and make a digital negative that will print with the right density and contrast ion the first printing is very important to me as I practice a very time consuming historial processes. I might think differently if I were just pulling factory made paper out of a box.

If you like grain, fine. I don't like it at all, whether printing directly with a negative or printing with a digital file. In fact, I have not used 35mm seriously for more than two decades because I don't care for grain, or for the overall quality of 35mm work.

Sandy

Sandy, this is a bit presumptuous...

If the quest is not so much the best digital file from a negative / diapositive, but the best digital file from a film based image, the wet process can give stunning results as well, without the added need to do extensive post processing in PS.

 

[jd callow]

Sandy this of course assumes that we are talking about colour printing.

 

[sanking]

JD,

I was talking about printing in carbon transfer and/or pt./pd from scanned B&W negatives, using digital negatives.

Why would you assume that I was talking about color?

Sandy

Sandy this of course assumes that we are talking about colour printing.

 

[Marco B]

The amount of control that is available with digital processing is far more extensive and easier to apply than with straight analog printing. That to me is such an obvious fact I don't believe that anyone with much experience with both methods would even question it.

I have done both digital and analog processing quite extensively, and I know PS quite well by now. Yet, for a straight BW image from a BW negative, I think there is lot's of control in the darkroom as well and I still love doing it...

In my experience, the extended capabilities of PhotoShop in contrast control sometimes lead to an unwanted situation, in which you start to get "blind" for what is the right way to tread an image. I sometimes find myself going back and forth trying different things, not being able to decide. Also, there is the risk that you keep "pulling" sliders on and on, since each individual step is not easily distinguishable from the next.

It is sometimes hard to keep "objective" using digital processing...

The ability to correct the file and make a digital negative that will print with the right density and contrast ion the first printing is very important to me as I practice a very time consuming historial processes. I might think differently if I were just pulling factory made paper out of a box.

Sandy, this is a completely different point...

If you need to apply a contrast curve with a huge correction to create a digital negative for alternative processing, I fully agree with you that PS combined with a 48bit file is far easier than trying to create an inter-positive and enlarged negative with the right contrast the analog way. But this is something different than trying to create a simple digital file from a BW negative.

Marco

 

[sanking]

I have never said that it is not possible to make high quality B&W prints directly from a B&W negative in the darkroom. And yes, there is certainly a lot of control. What I have said is merely that there are more controls possible with a digital file working in PS, and that these controls are much easier and faster to apply.

Whether or not optical printing or digital printing is *better* is dependent on many factors, including the amount of informatin in the original negative, degree of enlargement, type of scan, ability of the printer, etc. etc.

You are correct in noting that the amount of control that is available in PS can be confusing. But they also allow us to control the tonal values at every point on the curve in a way that provides tremendous creative potential.

The main thing, however, is that we are not even talking about the same thing. My remarks apply to printing with carbon transfer and other alternative processes where there is no option for printing directly from small format negatives. You either make a digital negative by scanning the original, or you make an enlarged negative in the darkroom. The advantages of the first method over the second are incalculable.

Sandy

I have done both digital and analog processing quite extensively, and I know PS quite well by now. Yet, for a straight BW image from a BW negative, I think there is lot's of control in the darkroom as well and I still love doing it...

Marco

 

[donbga]

Marco,

It is sometimes hard to keep "objective" using digital processing...

The same notion applies to a traditional wet made print. There is no such thing as a straight objective print regardless of the criteria of printing philosophy or print creation.

One can narrow or expand the interpretation of the negative as a print within the limits of intpretation imposed by the materials and methods used.

IOW, both methods (digital vs traditional) printing are limited or augmented by the technology of the process and the skill or lack thereof possessed by the printer (printer in this context meaning the person making the final print.)

In the end it's all about choices IMO. No rules just right!

Don Bryant

 

[Marco B]

The same notion applies to a traditional wet made print. There is no such thing as a straight objective print regardless of the criteria of printing philosophy or print creation.

Don (and Sandy), I agree with all that you wrote, but there is still one other fundamental difference:

With analog processing, there may also not be something like an "objective" way of printing, but at least the box of paper will run out at some point to keep you from going on any further and maybe have a moment of reflection on what the h**l you are actually doing

With digital, one can go on an on.... well, at least until the next black-out of the grid

Marco

 

[sanking]

Marco,

You may have not considered one important aspect of alternative printing. We actually hand coat our own papers, which takes a lot of time. I prefer to get the image right on screeen precisely in order to avoid wasting a lot of fairly expensive paper, to say nothing of time.

Sandy

Don (and Sandy), I agree with all that you wrote, but there is still one other fundamental difference:

With analog processing, there may also not be something like an "objective" way of printing, but at least the box of paper will run out at some point to keep you from going on any further and maybe have a moment of reflection on what the h**l you are actually doing

With digital, one can go on an on.... well, at least until the next black-out of the grid

Marco